something that is missing in a big economic debate as well. a classic example of how they treat to tax cut thing. you are a selfish sob if you are against it, and a clueless moron if you think that government warrants more money because of melissa: i'm melissa francis and here's what's "money" tonight. how do you know when a federal jobs program is just a complete mess? when states won't even take the handout. we have got details on what they're saying, why they're saying no thanks to uncle sam's help even though they need to create new jobs. plus the campaign fight over coal takes center stage with a big move to strip away a mountain of regulations but can it save the industry before the lights go out for good? subsidizing electric cars. a ceo predicts that it will

cost you $7.5 billion and have no impact whatsoever on gasoline demand or greenhouse emissions. why in the world are you paying for it then? it will be be a disagree with me to remember. even when they say it's not it is always about money melissa: first let's take a look at the day's market headlines. europe's debt crisis rearing its head again. leaders of gerny and france make conflicting comments over the future of europe's banking system. the news leads to a modest selloff in stocks. the dow closed down 20 points. plus oil prices sliding on global growth fears. slumping 1%. that is crude's lowest close since early august. shares of apple falling. the company sold more than five million new iphone 5 in the opening weekend despite

apple running out of supplies. the figure came in as below some analysts. some analysts predicted as many as 10 million iphones would be sold over the first three days. people are never happy. you know i don't have any audio at all? you do? okay. what is the one message we hear over and over again from the white house. what is at the forefront of most american's minds? >> put forward specific plans we know would create jobs. we have got too many good jobs we have to create. we need to create more jobs faster. melissa: it seems to make sense. after all we have an unemployment rate of 8.1%. 15 million people out of work or just given up looking. there is federal program with up sentives states can give to companies that higher folks. guess what? many states won't even apply because they don't even have the funding to even administer these programs. joining me small business owner clint green leave and economist peter morici.

thanks for joining me. we are having ought yo problems. bear with me on this. peter, i want to start with you. this is one of the classic stories. states were invited to submit ideas for rei am employment -- rei am moment transition projects. in a lot of cases the cases, you said, you know what? this is a gimmick. we can't afford to even administer the programs. we'll just pass on the money. i'm not sure i heard of states passing on money. >> states do pass on money all the time when the bureaucracy is too intense. very similar what is going on with drilling for oil in the gulf with these regulations and paperwork. remember the "cash for clunkers"? and the morass of paperwork that went wit that? just too expensive to run one of these programs for the states to decide to participate. melissa: yeah. i mean, clint, does that make sense to you? sound a lot like when they offer incentives to small businesses to go ahead and hire people. you kind of know it is a

temporary one time thing. so you think twice about taking them up on the offer because you know in the long run it will end up costing you money, right? >> these plans are horrible. basically amounts to taking a piss in a forest fire and hoping to stop the process. it will not cover it. for me to get $2,000 to hire one person for a job i not sure i need in the first place it will not cover the cost, god forbid the person doesn't work out, i can't fire them. too much red tape. melissa: we all blanched here on the set for the analogy you used. it may be appropriate. kind of a lot for dinnertime television. but, -- >> sorry about that. melissa: that is okay. >> how about shooting some lighter fluid on a forest fire? the whole program is be a sudden. the reason this gentleman isn't hiring people because he is not selling as many books as he would like. demand for his product were better, if there was more economic activity it would make sense to hire people. you have to have sales before you have employment. that is what this

administration doesn't get. melissa: clint, i mean, peter is not casting as per shuns on your business by any means but making the point thing makes you hire workers is actual demand. government well-intentioned or not, obviously the intentions here are good, but when they try to sort of gerry rig the system to create employment it doesn't work. >> right. the problem is there is a lot of pent-up demand. i actually have demand but i'm so frightened. we have the fiscal cliff coming. we have tax uncertainty. we have the election. we have europe. we have collapse of lodgic in the qe3 come out. there are so many bad things the government has done. i'm not willing to take a risk and risk my capital right now even with demand out there. melissa: peter, what do you think the government could do to create jobs right now? it is very easy to stand on the sidelines and throw stones what is going on. but is there one solid concrete thing they could do? >> yeah. i think they could focus on the trade deficit with china because the money goes to

china is money that leaves but doesn't come back to, buy foreign products but doesn't buy american products. that is one problem. the other is, if we develop more domestic energy even consuming same amount that is much less for the middle east that doesn't come back. finally, i think, small businesses could use a lot of help from the banks. that is banks were more able and ready to lend. and recognizing that the, the banking crisis that we had in 2008 and nine wasn't from lack of regulation but it was failure of regulations we had. melissa: yeah. >> dodd-frank was really more than we needed. sarbanes-oxley was supposed to solve most of those problems. melissa: clint, is there one thing the government could do to help you out right now? >> yeah, just get the hell out of the way. that's all i'm asking. get out of the way. melissa: clint, you're not one to mince words. i think i love you. i mean thank you for coming on. >> i like that. melissa: yeah i do too. thanks, guys. moving on to global issues. more than 120 world leaders

are in new york this week for the annual meeting of the u.n. general assembly, including countries that enjoy billions of dollars of aid from the u.s. given horrific events we've seen unfold in the middle east since 9/11 you might think the president's first priority is to meet with the leaders while we're here. in fact while president obama so far not scheduled a meeting with israeli's prime minister he made time to chat up the ladies on "the view" today. to figure out what message he sending, senator john barrasso. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> there are three things the president need to do when he addresses the united nations these things. what are those? >> i wrote an article in "politico" today. it specifically says the president has to acknowledge there is still a war on terror after you see what happened in the past couple weeks when 9/11, with our embassy, with the loss of life of our ambassador. that is number one. number two the president needs to talk about the relationship between the united states and israel. when he says that israel,

that the united states always has their back on all issues what does that specifically mean? i think, three, the president owes it to the people of this country to know what his foreign policy is. the president in 2008 laid out a foreign policy that he would hit reset button with russia. i believe that has failed. melissa: yeah. >> he said he would have negotiations with iran. that has clearly failed. iran is closer to nuclear weapon, melissa, than ever before. he has said that the arab world would have a much better relationship because he is the president. that's not the case when you have these sort of concerted organized abuses going on. melissa: right. start with the first one, saying the war on terror is still ongoing. do you think that it is realistic that he would do that give that he sort of spiked the football with the death of osama bin laden saying that it was almost over? do you think that he is really going to acknowledge that is still going on even though obvious to the rest

of us when we watch what is going on in the middle east? >> i think the president owes it to the american people and the people of the world to acknowledge it is going on because we're saying that. you go to international convention and say usama bin laden is dead but al qaeda we know is growing stronger. it has a significant presence in libya and he ought to acknowledge that. melissa: why do you think he is not meeting with bebe netanyahu. >> i think it is a mistake. i think there is rocky relationship between the united states and israel, probably the rockiest of the last 30 years. the president in his interview last night on "60 minutes" said he would ignore the noise. that's how he referred to it. he referred to the death of our ambassador as a bump in the road. i think that the president is way off base on this. i sit on the foreign relations committee. we had a top secret briefing what happened in libya. i think they're either stonewalling. to me seems like there is cover-up going on. that they don't want the american people to know what really happened there. melissa: why? >> makes you wonder, what really happened? why are they not sharing

this information with the american people? this was not something that was the result of a, of a poorly-made youtube video. this was on 9/11. melissa: right. >> this was something preplanned, organized. might have been weeks or months in advance. people showed up with rocket-propelled grenades. that is not something you show up at a demonstration. melissa: almost ridiculous to tie two things together. most of us knew immediately when we saw what day it was what was inspiring this attack. setting that aside for a second, what do you think of him coming in town going on "the view", a day time talk show at a time when there are world leaders coming from obviously around the globe to come here and meet to try to make some sort of progress and he is in essence campaigning? >> he has been doing that well over a year. the economy is in sham else about. there are still over 8% unemployment now which has been the case for 43 months. we have a debt of over $16

trillion. i understand the president didn't even know how much debt we had as a country. this is time when the american people know they're not better off now than they were four years ago but it seems he wants to ignore that and talk about anything other than that his record as commander-in-chief and as the person who said he would put america back to work. melissa: senator, thanks for coming on. >> melissa, thanks for having me. melissa: battle over coal gets white hot. republicans move to overrule a wave of regulations. but can the industry be saved or is it too late? we have that coming up next. paul ryan exclusive. the gop vice presidential candidate kicks off his bus tour to ohio. only rich edson had a special sit-down. he has it coming right up. do you ever have too much money this [ horn honks ]

[ male nouncer ] you start your day... love you, too. ...thinking about what's important to you -- your family... ...e mortgage... the kids' college tuition. [ cellphone ringing ] but life insurance? [ horn honking ] life is unpredictable. that's why at fidelity life we want you to think about term life insurance --

taking care of your family's future expenses if something happens to you. it's easy. we get to know you and your needs, then give you our best quote and our competitors'. you choose and save up to 70%. that could mean $250,000 of coverage for just $15 a month. we offer plans with no medical exam, and we've been in business for over 100 years. call fidelity life. ♪ or visit fidelitylife.com for your free quote. [ horn honks ] hey, honey. do we have life insurance? ♪ [ male announcer ] or visit fidelitylife.com to secure your family's future today. ♪ . melissa: as we've been telling you one of president obama's biggest platforms is of course clean energy. in fact both campaigns made their energy plans a big part of the campaign. so what does the future of conventional coal look like?

on one hand the obama administration has vowed to end it. while on the other hand a handful of companies are pushing ahead with new plants. president obama -- clean coal. house republicans say regulations he enacted will both hurt the industry and economy. the house passed a bill to significantly deleg rate the coal industry. are the epa regulations justified or not? we have daniel weiss, senior fellow for center for american progress action fund and lauren steffy, houston sent.mnist for the -- sentinel. thanks for joining me. do you think there is war on clean coal. do you agree with that? >> absolutely not. there is no war on coal. there however are cheaper cleaner al turn testifies to -- alternatives to coal like cheaper natural gas and utilities decide to use them. natural gas use gone up 50% in the past four years because gas is really cheap. if you add in the cost of all the health impacts of

coal, natural gas is even more favorable. melissa: okay. >> there is no war on coal. melissa: something is going on, lauren, if half a dozen coal burning plants been in the planning are stepping up their plans as quickly as possible to begin construction before new rules from the epa go into effect in april of 201. there is something going on, right? >> well, there is absolutely something going on and we've seen this in texas. we probably permitted more new coal plants here than any other state in the union. but it really has a lot more to do with hydraulic fracturing than anything the epa is doing. melissa: yeah. i mean that is absolutely true. that one of the big impacts on coal right now is natural gas is all of sudden so plentiful and so cheap it is crowding out and making it harder for people it start coal plants. daniel, though, do you think, isn't it dangerous to become dependent on one energy source? i mean if we focus all of our energy on natural gas

and ignore the fact that we're the saudi arabia of coal, seems like that is a dangerous long-term plan as well? >> yes, but that is nobody's plan. that might be a fiction perpetuated by the right-wing media but in fact president obama has an all of the above strategy, which includes burning coal more cleanly for electricity. using natural gas for lechist interest. using oil but more efficiently having cars go much further on gallon of gas but investing in cleaner alternatives. wee doubled renewable electricity generation in past 3 1/2 years. we need to keep doing that. that is all of the above strategy to create new jobs and manufacturing. >> do you believe this is a right-wing conspiracy and the president has an all of the above strategy? >> i think what is going on with coal is basic economics. as you alluded to, natural gas prices are significantly lower than they were a couple years ago. a lot of these coal companies invested in plants, they have invested billions

of dollars to build these new plants. they did that because especially here in texas, if you were generating electricity with coal you were basically guaranteed a profit because the margin was the difference between the price of coal and the price of natural gas. that margin has gone away. it completely gutted the economics of the business. and now these guys are looking for something to blame. regulations is a convenient scapegoat but the fact is they knew regulations were going to get tougher. they may not have known how or exactly when but they knew something was -- did. melissa: hang on. i want to make sure we're i know but do we think the epa regulations are on base and are fair or are they too restrictive, i would ask each of you that question. lauren, what do you think and daniel, you get a chance. are they going up. do they justify for clean air or do they go too far, what do you think? >> regulations that deal with mercury.

these are very toxic chemicals. we know they're bad for us. it is hard to argue tightening restrictions on mercury is a bad thing. again the industry knew this was coming. even the carbon emissions stuff, global warming stuff. you know, these things have been in the works for years. melissa: okay. >> and i find it hard to believe you would have even started building a coal plant five, 10 years ago and couldn't read the writing on the wall. melissa: daniel, you seem to agree on everything but i let you get in on the last word, are the restrictions too strict. >> no, they're not. i agree with lauren. the law that these regulations were done from was passed in 1990. they have had more than 20 years to get ready for it. secondly epa scientists the rules to control mercury, other toxic chemicals, soot and smog will save 60,000 lives every year and reduce hospitalizations by equal amount every single year. that's very good for our health, particularly for our children and senior citizens. melissa: we're going to

leave it there, guys. thanks for joining us. >> thanks, melissa. >> thank you. melissa: speaking of the campaign, republican vice-presidential nominee paul ryan is in ohio today to push the romney plan for a stronger middle class. in a fox business exclusive our very own rich edson sat down with ryan in the important swing state. >> melissa, when you talk about ohio, the other swing states like florida, the problem for the ryan-romney campaign they're beginning to see a little bit of an opening for president obama. he is picking up steam in some of the polls here. we asked congressman ryan what they could do to try to address that. he is basically saying don't worry about it. if we highlight enough how bad the economy is, when election day comes around they will win this thing. we also spoke about the comments that governor romney had made a couple of months ago talking about those americans, nearly half of them pay no federal income taxes. >> because of the stagnant obama economy, more

able-bodied people are dependent upon the government because they have no opportunities in this economy. what mitt and i are trying to do, say, here are the ideas to get growth, to get jobs created so workers can have job security and higher take-home pay. here is how you get people from dependency, from welfare dependency back to work. we should not be measuring our safety net programs and success of them like food stamps by how many people go on the programs. we should be measuring success how many people we get off the programs and back to self-sufficiency and back to work. >> i asked him whether he thought 47% met a change in american fiber toward a america towards "entitlement nation"? that is not the case, as he explained right there there are too many opportunities, there are not enough opportunities in the american economy. also asked him about taxes, melissa. it is interesting. governor romney came out his most recent effective tax rate, 14.1%. we said under the new romney-ryan tax plan would governor romney pay more or

less in taxes? ryan says because they will get rid of so many tax deductions governor romney would actually under their plan pay more. back to you. melissa: rich, interesting stuff. do they feel like they're winning people over? i guess they're going to say that because they're politicians but do you think that they feel like they're getting traction? >> they say that. and they feel, they are winning folks over but the problem is, polls in some of these key states don't necessarily show it. overall nationwide you've seen a narrowing since the democratic national convention. you've seen the republicans move more toward the positive. there are troubling signs from them in places like here. like in ohio and in florida, some other battleground states. they have to take either ohio or florida to win this thing. they know that. they have a lot of work to do in places like this. melissa: rich edson, great interview. good job. thank you so much. >> thanks, melissa. melissa: states cut $100 billion worth of ballooning pension benefits. sounds like good news. the one problem.

the whole is still $800 billion deep. details how they plan to fill it coming up next. plus unintended consequences despite medical records going electronic. medicare bills are rising and fraud is spreading. we'll explain why coming up. ♪ .

♪ . melissa: so it is not news to anyone that our country has to make significant reforms to public pensions across the board or those funds will go bankrupt. in fact cities have gone bankrupt over them. and the problem isn't getting any better. a new report shows even though states collectively cut $100 billion from the public worker pensions, there is still a $800 billion gap. joining

>> run away entitlements i believe to be the greatest threat to our nation, health care and retirements. the gap is based on inflated investment return assumptions. a professor at stanford business school and robbie marks think the liabilities could be as large as $4 trillion, a number trillions

more than even "the wall street journal" reported this weekend in their article. the problem this will end up affecting every single household in america. melissa: yeah. >> this is something we can not be complacent about. we have to be proactive to fix this problem or else it will be a debt we'll leave to future generations of americans. melissa: but i want to explain viewers what you were talking about at the beginning that the problem is bigger than most people think. that is because when they go ahead and make the estimate mapgss of -- estimations of what liabilities are down the road, they budget, 6, 7, 8% growth in investments every year and no one is getting that kind of return. >> misdemeanor of these plans plans, including colorado have investment return assumption over next 30 years possibly 8%. michael bloomberg said 7 1/2% investment return is indefensible and a 7% return, if somebodies of it to you take it and hope their name is not madoff. the reason for these

inflated investment returns the higher the investment assumption is, the less you have to fund the plan properly. all that does is create defered liability and leave a debt burden on future generations of americans and we need to actually be better than that and get off the couch and do something about this problem before it affects every household in america. melissa: yeah anecdotally, to give you example we have $25 billion pension liability here in colorado. that is approximately $15,000 per individual. 30,000 per home in colorado. melissa: tell us what we we can do about it though. workers making a big deal paying 10% more toward their retirement benefits than three years ago. that is nothing. that doesn't get us close. how do you actually solve this problem? >> well, you have to solve the problem, boston college has a great center for retirement studies that is doing research on hybrid plans being adopted by states like michigan, rhode island and oregon. in hybrid plans states

insure a pension, 30 grand, 40 grand, when compared to the private sector, no expectation of ever getting social security benefits of younger workers. then after that, an individual is responsible for investing for their own retirement security in a defined contribution plan. what it does, melissa, gets the states out of insuring six-figure pensions which are completely unsustainable. which states should never be in the position in the first place. melissa: you're out of time and we have to be honest what the real numbers are because almost no one is doing that we appreciate you coming on. >> thanks for having me on, melissa. melissa: getting hospitals to use electronic medical records was supposed to save money for patients but now the exact opposite is happening. we have details. plus, even the congressional budget office says electric cars subsidies are a waste of money. that is not stopping the government from spending $7.5 billion of your money. we'll explain that. "piles of money" is coming up. ♪ .

♪ . melissa: in today's day and age the idea of transitioning medical records to electronic systems seems obvious but the new system could be putting a hole in your wallet and here's how. "the new york times" did a study that says hospitals got a billion dollars more in medical reimbursements in 2010 than five years earlier. some may be increased medical costs but a lot could be just fraud. to find out, we turn to harry greenspun, health care transformation and technology at deloitte center health care solutions. no way to fit that on one business card. good luck. anyway, let me ask you, so one of the big details

within that is important to highlight that hospitals received incentives to adopt electronic records. like we said, makes a lot of sense in this day and age. hospitals that got the incentives showed a 47% rise in medicare payments during that time period. while hospitals that didn't use those medical electronic records only saw 32% rise. it is supposed to be more efficient. i would expect hospitals using electronic records to have lower costs. what is the problem you think? >> we have to break it down and understand where the numbers are coming from. melissa: okay. >> some certainly could be fraud and fraud is an important part of our health care waste. three to 10% what we spend on health care. another issue once you start doing things electronically you may capture more accurately the sort of work being done. it is hard to tease apart what is happening in some of those place. >> let's drill down to the specifics because i'm prepared for that. some of the most aggressive

billing came from 1700 of more than 440,000 doctors. just a tiny fraction of those doctors, ate up $100 million in 2010 alone. how is that possible? do you think, those 1700 doctors, is that the result of they were generally, general practitioners and they were in the e.r.? >> again, it is to go through the specifics we'll have to understand what was going on. what is interesting though, by implementing electronic health records not only do you potentially have the ability to create fraud but you have much better way of investigating it. similarly when we look at college students committing plagiarism we worry about them using computers to do that. at the same time we have tools because that information is electronic to understand who is committing that kind of plagiarism. it is double-edged sword. melissa: it was a whistle-blower in this case, an emergency room physician at med did -- methodist center in illinois it said a

thorough review of patient's symptoms took place even though the exams were rarely jumped. that jumped 80% getting evaluation code. just as soon as they put the computer program in place. he says it urged just to click the box to move on. he said a lot of people were clicking it to keep going. that resulted in a ton of billing at this one hospital in particular? >> yeah. again, it is hard to get caught up in instance of a single case. you have to remember that we've got a you know, 30% of our hilt care dollars are wasted according to recent studies that is $750 billion. fraud waste and abuse represents a small part of that but in order to really make some headway on everything from inefficient care to improper diagnoses and lack of coordinated care we have to have electronic medical records as a foundation to move that forward. >> certainly believe in medical records because electronic is the most efficient way to do sig. apparently the most efficient way to bill the government and perhaps do it

fraudulently. i don't know. we'll have to discuss it more another time. thanks for coming on. >> thank you for having me. melissa: wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on electric cars now. a new congressional budget report slams the costly subsidies. i say it is might be time to pull the cord on these things. someone here will debate me coming up. it is really all about money. ♪ stay top of mind with customers? from deals that bring them in with an offer... to social media promotions that turn fans into customers...

to events that engage and create buzz... to e-mails that keep loyal customers coming back, our easy-to-use tools will keep you in front of your customers. see what's right for you at constantcontact.com/try.

♪ ♪. melissa: so how much are you willing to chip in to support the electric car industry? i hope it's a lot because a new report out today shows in the next seven years taxpayers will pay a whopping 7 1/2 billion towards the manufacturing and promotion of fuel efficient cashes. but here's the kicker, the report which was done by the congressional budget office by the way, don't talk to me

about who did this study, also says the lifetime cost of an owning an electric car are still higher than if you had a conventional car or hybrid. to me sounds like the government is throwing away your hard-earned dollars and chicks them out the window. here to me to disagree with me. david: tyson slocombe from public. you are you're a brave man to come on. the cbo reports really irks me. we're paying $7.5 billion over the next seven years. $7500 a vehicle. i will start with fact number one, which is plug-in vehicles will cost 16,000 to 19,000 more than vehicles. we're pay being extra to have these cars on the road. do you think it is worth it? >> abs slautly. the number you're not sighting $300 billion a year americans spend to import oil. any way you look at our energy equation the money

that we're wasting importing oil is taking billions of dollars every year out of our economy. so what this program is trying to do is to create a manufacturing ways where it not only the american automotive industry will be able to provide products to american consumers, to help us use less oil but we can become globally competitive again. no question the future of transportation --. melissa: hang on, hang on. i agree it is about creating manufacturing here for sure. that is definitely what we're spending our money on supporting gm, ford and chrysler but your other point getting off foreign oil, i would quote the cbo says, consequently the tax credits will have no impact on total gasoline use or greenhouse emissions at the end of the day. it does not achieve the goal of cutting gasoline use at all. >> yeah. in the next couple of years that is absolutely correct. you have to start somewhere. that cbo report also notes that electric hybrid vehicles were not introduced

into the u.s. market until 2010. so this is a brand new entry into the fleet of vehicles that consumers can buy and you have to start somewhere. and we're starting small but i think that it's a national security issue for us to diversify our transportation fuel and in a great start would be electric vehicles. they're not for everybody. but they're going to be for a lot of people. melissa: i don't know if that is a great start. even if your goal was to get off oil, i'm not sure these electric vehicles are getting the job done because we're talking about spending $26,500 more per vehicle and we're getting absolutely nothing for it. no less fuel usage. no, greenhouse gas emissions are exactly the same. when you talk about the hybrid, the gas/electric car together, they say that it's $5,000 less up front, generally than a car that is not a hybrid but over the lifetime of the car it costs you $12,000 more to have it.

so you're still paying more and again you're not getting any environmental and fuel benefits for this. maybe we need to scrap the idea of electric vehicles and try something else if we want to get off oil. >> that would be a bad idea because you talk to people that own these electric vehicles and they're extremely excited. they're excited to pass by gas station after gas station and not spend a dime throwing their money away on foreign countries that often hate america. melissa: if we go anecdote for anecdote i have a very good friend that bought a gas-electric hybrid because it was cheaper. he was so frustrated because he didn't save money on gas. the thing was over a clunker. he spent more time fixing it up. over the time it cost him $12,000 more. he ended up trading it back in for a full fuel vehicle, a regular gasoline burner. >> look, a lot of consumers would be eager to try to avoid increasing gasoline prices. let me tell youing something,

oil will only become more expensive. it is priced globally. even though the u.s. is producing more and using less oil here it is priced globally and china and india are pushing the price up. anything we can do to diversify our transportation fuel will be a good thing. electric cars have to be a part of that equation. melissa: i think they're too expensive to be part of that equation. $7.5 billion i don't know for what. we both agree it is worth looking for other solutions. thanks for coming on. >> hey, my pleasure, melissa. melissa: we have a "money" update. have you seen this? this is so bad. one woman tried to restore this old fresco of jesus but sort of ruined it. now, now, she is not just embarrassed, she wants royalties for what she did. we'll explain why coming up next. you can never have too much money. ♪ . [ male announcer ] wouldn't it be nice if there was an easier,

less expensive option than a traditional lawyer? at legalzoom you get personalized services for your family and your business that's 100% guaranteed. so go to legalzoom.com today for personalized, affordable legal protection.

♪ melissa: it's time for a little fun with spare change, joined by our very own of lauren and ashley. your first time on the show. thank you for joining us. first up, take a look at this. a fight broke out among

employees at a plan in china, a major supplier to electronic giants like apple. it grew into a riot, involving about 1,000 employees. it took 5,000 policemen to come break it up. >> you know why, 79,000 workers in a dormitory. i mean, it is so china. that's like rabbits in a hut all piled up on top of each other working long hours with wages that aren't great. i'm not surprised. >> it's amazing. only 2000 or causing the trouble. hard to imagine this many people together, you know, working in these kind of conditions. also can surprising that apple, supposed to be very pro planet, everything that feels good, the san francisco bay area. >> a different story in china were these parts are made. there has been criticism about this before.

1 million employees all over china, but they have these huge dormitories. you have to ask yourself, what are the conditions like? what is going into making these? melissa: not a very light hearted story for spare change. let's move. take a look at this. it is much better. seventy-six. diamond, so there is no perspective. that is the size of my head. expected to bring in more than $15 million when auctioned off at christie's, one of the world's most famous diamonds, once even owned by an archduke. i actually think -- see, i would think that 15 million cells occur beleaguered deal. archduke. 20 million. >> what was the duke doing with it? wearing it on the ring? melissa: i don't know. >> you can come up with 15 million by then. >> oh, yes. i have some money put aside. >> when you do research it traded hands about 20 years ago in 1993 and then it was

10 million, so it's kind of on demint 50% of its value in 20 years. >> not that great. melissa: you know, obviously difficult to unload, not terribly liquid. your frawley to 50 percent is great. >> on friday it the analogy. a huge, huge. melissa: that would be hard to wear. what you do with that? >> you could come up with something. >> nothing and would not do. that it cannot ride. >> i always knew it. melissa: the royal wedding is on the auction block. the first slice sold for more than $20,500. the piece is said to be very well preserved. i mean -- >> what would you do for a slice of cake? that's what i want to know.

back to the cake. the year-old. here we go. so there are three pieces of cake that are actually part of this auction. one from the royal wedding of prince charles and lady diana. so that is old and, i don't know, cursed. and then princess and from 1973. >> also cursed because they're divorced. melissa: so people love the royals. that's what it goes for some much money, but now that we have seen it will probably go for more. >> you can't have your cake and eat it too. melissa: let's move on. funny update. the money update on the previous spare change story that we told you about. an elderly woman decided to personally restore basically running this fresco.

since become an unlikely tourist attraction. they started charging a nominal fee to come and see it. in my opinion there are making the best of a bad situation. now the woman wants royalties. she does said the money would go to charity, but come on. she relented this work of art without question. >> she should be fired. was she a volunteer? >> very unclear the circumstances under which she was retained. it sounds like she went in her spare time and started painting on top of it. in any case there are going to sue are for running what turned out to be this thing that brought people in command of a sudden she's saying wait a second. guess who will soon home. >> she's off the hook. she made the painting looks like a monkey. she doesn't get royalties. >> that just cracks me up. >> it's like a monkey. melissa: i think she deserves punishment for that. ve